Vaccine Mandate Case – Chief Secretary of Maharashtra Debashish Chakrabarty is guilty of contempt and perjury for filing false affidavit by concealing the facts, claims the Petitioner in his Rejoinder Affidavit

Vaccine Mandate Case – Chief Secretary of Maharashtra Debashish Chakrabarty is guilty of contempt and perjury for filing false affidavit by concealing the facts, claims the Petitioner in his Rejoinder Affidavit

Petitioner Shri. Yohan Tengra has also sought prosecution of Dr. Sadhana Tayade, Director of Health Services, Public Health Department for similar offences under section 52, 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 201, 202, 218, 471, 474, 120(B), 34, 109 etc. of Indian Penal Code.

All the accused officials and ministers are charged with section 409, 166, 52, 109 etc. of IPC and section 51(b) and 55 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 for bringing unlawful mandates which are ultimately going to reap wrongful profit of thousands of crores to vaccine companies and additionally putting the life of citizens in danger.

Prosecution of Respondent No. 10 Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray is sought as per provisions of section 120(B) of IPC for his involvement in the conspiracy to bring such unlawful mandates.

The reason for coming up with such suggestions by the Task Force Members is also exposed by pointing out their links with Pharma & Vaccine Companies and their agent NGOs like Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).

The state has not denied the serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation of thousands of crores of rupees and therefore as per the law, they have admitted it.

The concluding paragraph of the Rejoinder Affidavit is as under;

“41. CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH

41.1. From the material available on record and legal position settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court including this Hon’ble Court, it is clear that the notifications and orders passed by the Respondent No. 1 are against the law and the policy decided by the Central Government.

The impugned orders are not based on sound materials or logics but actuated by the ulterior purposes.

41.2. The mandates are unlawful, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore liable to quashed and set aside with a cost of Rs. 5 Crores as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

41.3. The petitioner and the citizens needs to be compensated as per Section 2 of Epidemic Act, 1897 by the State, for the losses incurred by each citizen due to unlawful mandates of the State. 

41.4. The Respondent No. 1 has not only passed the unlawful orders but also made false and misleading submissions on affidavit before this Hon’ble Court with ulterior purposes. Therefore they are liable to be prosecuted and punished under Section 52, 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 201, 202, 218, 471, 474 r/w 120(B), 34, 109 etc. of IPC and hence appropriate direction is required to be given to the Registrar of the High Court to file complaint as per procedure laid down under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. OR an enquiry through C.B.I. can be ordered as done in Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Vs. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 761, Afzal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (1996) 7 SCC 397, ABCD Vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52.  

41.5. Respondent No. 1 Shri. Debashish Chakraborty &Dr. Sadhna  Tayde are also liable for action and punishment under Section 2(c) & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India for filing false affidavit before this Hon’ble Court, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABCD Vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52.

41.6. That the act of Respondent No. 1 & its authorities in deliberately not following the scientific data and suggestions by the experts like Dr. Sanjay Rai of AIIMS New Delhi, regarding not  vaccinating the persons with antibodies due to natural immunity is ex-facie having an impact of wastage & misappropriation thousands of crores of public money with giving wrongful profit to vaccine companies and wrongful loss to common man. Therefore the Respondent No. 1 Shri. Debashish Chakraborty, Respondent No. 10 Shri. Uddhav Thackrey and all others involved in the conspiracy, who directly or indirectly supported the unlawful acts and helped in facilitation of the crime needs to be prosecuted under Section 52, 409, 120(B), 109 & 34 etc. of IPC and for any other offences by which they are responsible for death or side effects caused to innocent persons.

41.7. Since the Order/SOP/Notifications issued by the Respondent No. 1 Debashish Chakraborty & others were against the law and policy decisions of the National Authority, therefore all the responsible officers are liable to be prosecuted under Section 51(b), 55 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 r/w Section 52, 166, 188, 120(B), 34, 109, 341, 342, 220 etc. of IPC.

41.8. Since Respondent No. 10 Shri Uddhav Thackrey, Chairman of State Disaster Management Authority, and Chief Minister of Maharastra is accused and complicit to the offence, therefore the investigation has to be done the C.B.I. as per law laid down in Dr.JaishriLaxmanraoPatilVs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLineBom 516. 

41.9. Appropriate action is required under section 2(b), (c) and 12 of Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 against the editorial board of Dainik Samna, web portal Live Law and other media persons involved in spreading one-sided, twisted and bias news about the present case or any other similar issues with ulterior motive to create prejudice amongst the public, witnesses and litigants.

 

41.10. Directions to all media persons to act as per law laid down in NileshNavalakha Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLineBom 56 and to publish the news regarding this case or covid-19 treatment in a fair and transparent manner by quoting the views of both the sides and not to spread fear but to remove fear and to help in creating a healthy atmosphere.”

8. The summary of submissions in the Rejoinder Affidavit are as under;

40. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION:

40.1. The impugned notification dated 10.08.2021 and the subsequent notifications including recent notification dated 27.11.2021 which made classification between the vaccinated and unvaccinated people is not based on any scientific evidence or any logical reasoning admissible under law.

40.2.   The notifications are against the policy decisions of Central Government. The Central Government in their affidavits filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court and in their reply under RTI and in the answer by Minister before Lok Sabha made  it clear that there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of vaccination status of a person and no benefits or services can be denied to a person who has not taken the vaccines,

40.3.  As per section 38 (a) 39 (1) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the state Government cannot frame any policies against the policy framed by the National Authority. And as per section 76 the National Authority has to decide the policy as per approvals of the Central Government. Therefore, the notification and order passed by Respondent No.1 which are against the policies of the Central Government are illegal.

40.4. The data given by the Respondent No. 1 itself makes it clear that the vaccinated people are neither protected from Covid-19 infection nor other people are safe from the spread of infection by the vaccinated people. The vaccinated people are also asked to follow the Covid Appropriate Behavior (CAB).

40.5. The another reasoning given by the Respondent No. 1 is about reduction in hospitalization, is not based on any data showing the number and percentage of hospitalization of Covid patients amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated. Even otherwise said submissions are proven to be false from the data given by the petitioner.

The data available in the public domain and relied by the petitioner is not disputed by the Respondent No. 1 therefore, prima facie it has to be accepted as true in allowing the petition as per law laid down by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI (1986) 1 SCC 133, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLine SC 985.

40.6. Even otherwise hypothetical the fear of future hospitalization cannot be ground to discriminate the people and stop them from doing their daily work.

40.7. As per reply given by the Union of India and the scientific research available, the sting operation carried out by the main stream media news paper Mid-Day, makes it clear that the mask mandates are unscientific and providing no protection to healthy people but causing harm to the body and decreasing the oxygen level in them.

The mask mandates are brought by the State (Respondent No. 1) to extort money from common people and the state authorities themselves are not following these rules as exposed from the wedding of daughter of Member of Parliament Shri Sanjay Raut.  

40.8. The reasoning given by the state for discrimination has no logic nor having any link with their orders.

Hence said order does not pass the scrutiny of the Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and therefore has to be declared as ultra-virus and need to be quashed forthwith.

40.9. State Authority (Respondent No. 1) acted in violation of section 2 of Epidemic Diseases Act,1897 and section 12 and 13 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 while passing orders to prohibit movements of unvaccinated people but not providing them compensation of the losses incurred by them.

40.10. Several applications for granting compensation are not even replied by the Government. This shows the double standard of the Government.

40.11. The state before this Hon’ble Court instead of being fair and transparent in the matter concerning crores of citizens, have acted in bad faith and is contesting the petition like adversial litigation. The dishonesty is writ large as can be seen from the very fact that despite the court’s order that the matter is serious and concerning fundamental rights of the citizen, the State Authority did not file the proper reply nor placed the correct and complete data before the Court.

State’s action is in Contempt of the Supreme Court & High Court guidelines in Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLine SC 985, Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI (1986) 1 SCC 133, Seethalakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 272, Amardeepsingh Thakur Vs. Deputy Inspector General 2020 SCC OnLineBom 6621.

40.12.  The reply affidavit is false & misleading and prepared with suppression, twisting and dishonest concealment of facts.

40.13. No reasoning is given by the state authorities to the specific ground taken by the Petitioner that as to why, the safest person, who had previous infection of Covid-19 and those have developed antibodies are being forced to take vaccines which is giving no benefit to them but causing harm to their bodies and causing loss to the tune of thousands of crores of public money. As per their own survey, there are more than 85% Citizen having developed antibodies.

40.13.1. Hence, the decision taken and order passed by the Respondent No.1 by ignoring this crucial data vitiates the order and lead to only one conclusion that the authorities passed the order by practising ‘Fraud on Power’ as per law laid down in Vijay Shekhar Vs. UOI (2004) 4 SCC 666 & Harshit Agarwal Vs. UOI (2021) 2 SCC 710.

40.13.2. This is a sufficient ground to draw an inference of malafides of the state authority and to order investigation through C.B.I. as ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida (2011) 6 SCC 508.

40.14. The Respondent No. 1 Chief Secretary Shri. Debashish Chakrabarty has not taken two doses but then too he is attending the Government office and has affirmed the affidavit from his office. This make it clear that the rules are not followed by the state authority itself. Which further means that the state officials are aware that non-compliance to their illogical, unscientific and unlawful rules will cause no threat to themselves or to the public.

Hence their opposition to the petition is unjustified and actuated with malice, ill-will, ulterior motive and malafide intention.

40.15. Government Pleaders and Senior Counsel representing the State of Maharashtra were duty bound to prepare draft and place full facts and documentary evidence before the Court even if they are against their clients. And to make lawful submissions and should not place reliance on twisted and suppressed data and per-incuriam, irrelevant judgments, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand (1999) 7  SCC 467(F.B), E. S. Reddi Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of A.P (1987) 3  SCC 258, Lal Bahadur Gautam Vs. State (2019) 6 SCC 441, Heena Nikhil Dharia Vs. KokilabenKirtikumarNayak and Ors. 2016  SCCOnLineBom 9859, State of Orissa Vs. Nalinikanta Muduli (2004) 7 SCC 19.

40.15.1.  But Government Pleader and Sr. Counsel did not perform their duty as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court.

40.15.2.  In fact, they took technical objection on incorrect facts.

40.16. The impugned orders passed by the State authorities and Respondent No. 1 are only executive orders. They are not placed before both the Houses of State Legislature as mandated under Section 78 (3) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

40.16.1. As per Article 19, 21 of the Constitution of India the curtailment of fundamental rights cannot be on the basis of executive orders but should be by a law enacted by the Parliament. Such orders need to be quashed. [Re. Dinthar Incident Vs. State of Mizoram 2021 SCC OnLineGau 1313].

40.17. The impugned orders are against the policy decisions of National Authority under Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Central Government and it is in violation of Section 38(a) & 39(1) of the Act and therefore it is ultra-vires, null,void& vitiated.

As per Section 76 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 the regulations should be made with the prior approval of the Central Government. Hence, the impugned notifications and orders are unlawful and made in breach of the guidelines by the Central Government.

40.17.1. It is an offence under Section 166, 188, 341, 342, 220, 409, 120(B), 34 etc. of IPC on the part of Respondent No. 1 Chief Secretary and others who are directly and indirectly involved in the conspiracy.

40.18. The impugned notifications are also illegal as they are passed without taking approval from the National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (NPDRR). Therefore, impugned notifications are illegal for violation of Rule 3 of Notification No. 47-31/2012-DM-111 dated 05.07.2017.

40.19. The data shows that hospitalization, infection amongst vaccinated is higher than the unvaccinated.

40.20. State did not perform their duty of publishing fatal side effects of vaccines and are forcing the people to take vaccines. The informed consent of the citizens is obtained either by deception or by force, which is contempt of law laid down in Common Cause Vs. Union of India  (2018) 5 SCC 1, Montgomery’ s Case [2015] UKSC 11 etc. It is violation of Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, 2005. 

40.21. The petitioner was compelled to take vaccine and therefore State is bound to compensate all victim citizen and the petitioner in view of law laid down in Registrar General Vs. State of Meghalaya 2021 SCC OnLineMegh 130.

40.22. Respondent No 10 Shri Uddhav Thackery by his act of commission and omission is liable to be prosecuted along with the Respondent No.1 Shri Debashish Chakraborty &Ors. as per section 120(B), 34,109 of IPC.

40.23.  The media persons involved in the conspiracy committed contempt of judgment in the case of NileshNavalakha Vs. UOI 2021 SCC OnLineBom 56  by publishing one sided news with ulterior motive to misled and confuse the public and witnesses and thereby to prejudice the cause.

40.23.   The media persons and more particularly the editorial board of Marathi Daily Samna, which is owned by wife of Respondent No.10 and web portal Live Law are also liable to be prosecuted in view provisions of the section 10 of Evidence Act and section 120 (B) & 34 of IPC.